Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: National Survey (Newsweek 6/23-24)

Topics: National , Poll

Newsweek
6/23-24/10; 964 adults, 3.8% margin of error
313 Democrats, 6.6% margin of error
294 Republicans, 6.6% margin of error
297 independents, 6.8% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Newsweek release)

National

Obama Job Approval
48% Approve, 46% Disapprove (chart)
Dems: 83 / 13 (chart)
Reps: 18 / 78 (chart)
Inds: 43 / 50 (chart)
Health Care: 43 / 51 (chart)
Economy: 38 / 58 (chart)
Afghanistan: 37 / 53
Iraq: 41 / 51
Terrorism: 44 / 48
Reform of Financial Industries: 36 / 53
Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico: 33 / 60

Approve of ___________ in Congress
Republicans: 35 / 54
Democrats: 35 / 53

State of the Country
27% Satisfied, 69% Dissatisfied (chart)

Party ID
34% Democrat, 30% Republican, 29% independent (chart)

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

Newsweek obviously hasn't done a poll in awhile. I saw the makeup of Democrats vs independents and Republians. They overpolled Republicans. This poll I knew was poorly conducted, but at least I know what their polling data was; that is something I can't say about Rasmussen.

____________________

Stillow:

LOL....farleft EVERY poll in your opinion is bad when it doesn't give you #'s you like. In every thread you go on about how the poll is bad unless it gives you what your want......thanks for the sideshow I guess.

Look at the party approvals, now basically identical. Fascinating.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Also check out favorability on the issues. Underwater on ALL of them. I think its only a matter of time before we start seeing Obama's job approval in the high thirties with consistency.

____________________

rdw4potus:

FLAP-What, other than the results, do you not like about this poll? It's very well written and follows every best practice for a live public opinion survey.

Stillow- I agree that the party approvals are the story of this poll. Go in and look at the crosstabs. Pretty interesting. Each party only gets 60% internal approval, and each gets cross approval of 10-20% as well. Maybe that speaks to the extent that disinterested voters react to the government as a whole?

I also wonder how firm the numbers on the Big O are. If today was November 6, 2012, would the Republicans who approve of his performance vote for him? Would the disapproving democrats vote against him or stay at home? What happens if the Tea Party succeeds in alienating the moderate wing of the Republican party? Do they kill their chances of success?

____________________

hoosier_gary:

I noticed that FM. Not only under water, all but one have a majority disapproving. Over half of the country disapproves of basically everything Obama is doing.

Did you notice that big healthcare bump? Maybe its a bump like they claim they have created millions of jobs in the past year. Just imagine how low his approval would be it he didn't have that HCR bump in there. If he got that 10 point bump like Clinton claimed he would, he would be at 38% approval right now.

Do you think Clinton might have lied to him? Think it might have had something to do with the Obama campaign calling Clinton a racist?

____________________

HookedOnPolls:

Oh, my and it's from Obama's dying newsrag

Inds: 43 / 50 (chart)
Health Care: 43 / 51 (chart)
Economy: 38 / 58 (chart)

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Independents are still pretty close to split - 50% disapprove with 43% approve and 7% undecided. Who knows which way those 7% will go? I guess it matters whether the outstanding ones are liberal or conservative leaning independents.

The disapproval in the policies must include a good number of democrats. The numbers for financial reform and particularly Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be so low otherwise. Everything is about the same from the Feb Newsweek poll except that there's been a HUGE swing on opinion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I always thought that if anything would bring Obama down, it would be the wars, not the complaints about domestic policies that republicans perenially complain about. His war politcies will turn off his supporters, similar to how Bush's immigration policies turned off a lot of republicans.

I expect the approval is higher than the individual issue #'s because a lot of people feel he is doing "fair," which in this case translates to more approval than disapproval.

As RDW noted, there are mixed messages coming out of those party approval numbers. Democrats are clearly disappointing a lot of their own. If the same 83% of democrats that approved of Obama approved of their party, their approval would be 5-10% higher.

____________________

Xenobion:

The sky is falling the sky is falling, just you wait, Obama's approval is going to be -84%, just you wait!

____________________

hoosier_gary:

Aaron:

I think his overall approval number is higher than the composite of his individual items simply because he is Obama. His average approval in the individual items is below 40%.

He is still riding his "Obama-ness". Over a billion dollars was spent in the initial advertising campaign for the Obama brand. It is going to take a little longer for reality to overcome hype. It takes people a while to admit that they have a crappy car when they lock themselves into a 4 year lease.

____________________

Xenobion:

I'm so star struck with Obama. I mean I didn't know if I was voting for Obama or the Jonas Brothers frankly. But one day I'll wake up, come to my senses, and vote Sarah Palin whom I though I was voting for Paris Hilton at the time, but it will be a good run.

____________________

bigfoot9p6:

X: I know your Palin/Hilton comment was stated with a sense of irony, but ironically Paris Hilton would probably be better president than Sarah Palin. Similar intellect but unlikely to be a raging ideologue.

____________________

vincent106:

I would agree with that bigfoot. I would also say that they would ALL BE WAY BETTER than Obummer including having BETTER intellect.

____________________

JMSTiger:

"Approve of ___________ in Congress
Republicans: 35 / 54
Democrats: 35 / 53"

If ever there was a time for a credible third party option, it would be now. All it needs is a Ross Perot figure that has the Ross Perot money, with the Ross Perot business background without the Ross Perot crazy factor. Probably only about 30% of the electorate is hardcore partisan Democrat and 30% is hardcore partisan Republican. The other 40% or so could be moved.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

/23-24/10; 964 adults, 3.8% margin of error
313 Democrats, 6.6% margin of error
294 Republicans, 6.6% margin of error

The poll is accurate based on who they interviewed, but Democrats have a much bigger margin of registered voters than Republicans do. This poll had just a slight greater number of Dems.

I think they should poll a greater number of Democrats than Republicans.

____________________

jamesia:

@JMSTiger

I agree. Eventually the mainstream media will catch on to the obvious anti-incumbency vibe. For now, it's still seen as largely anti-Democratic. This might be another reason why centrists like Crist are doing so well, who get to use the meme that "neither party has it right." Crist is pro-business, not crazy, social liberal. Basically the perfect centrist candidate.

As for the poll: good overall job approval numbers for Obama despite a large oversample of Republicans.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

This summer isn't over. If the GOP or their supporters embarass themselves and get violent, threatening and intimidating, it will hurt them tremendously. I think they may behave themselves since they think their chances for a win a greater than they were last year, but I think the far right extremists are their worst enemy, and eventually will be their demise.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"If ever there was a time for a credible third party option, it would be now."

Like the Unity08 movement that did so well?

People have been saying that kind of thing for a long time, although it's never worked out since prior to the Civil War. A credible 3rd party would almost certainly come from the moderate right, which would be a terrible result for republicans. It would be Woodrow Wilson or Bill Clinton all over again.

A 3rd party might be able to get a decent % of the popular vote, maybe some house seats, but there's no way to get an electoral vote majority.

Parties are not built overnight, and the closest we have right now is the tea party (unorganized and batty), the green party (irrelevant issues to most people), and the libertarians (ideologues). It took republicans 20-30 years to form, and then there was still a lot of volatility for 20 or so years after the Civil War.

____________________

jamesia:

@Aaron
I think "3rd party" in JMSTiger's case was just used as a kind of simile for "not GOP or Dem" ... maybe I'm wrong though. If anything, most polling shows that at the ballot box, most teabaggers pull the lever for the GOP candidate, while leftist independents don't vote Democratic.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Eventually the mainstream media will catch on to the obvious anti-incumbency vibe."

I think they just fail to see that we're basically in the same place that we were in 2000 - the coalitions are just a little different.

Obama has been locked in at a median of approval ~47-48 since december. Disapproval is around ~45-47. I like RCP's graph better because they eliminate internet polls and date the averages. In 6 months median approval has dropped about 2 points and disapproval has risen about 1 point.

There are a couple things this year that seem out of the ordinary - 1) flatline Obama approval/disapproval seemingly regardless of events. The day after republicans are saying Obama's hitting the lowest ever point of his presidency, he settles back in around 47.5-48.5%. Case in point Rasmussen today. Usually presidents are more mobile with a clear trajectory one way or the other.

2) High disregard for both parties but no alternatives. This is unprecented as far as I'm aware - every time before one party was always relatively more well liked than the other.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

Aaaron:

I think it is more likely for a third party to rise up out of the far left. The number calling themselves liberal has dropped to 20%. They seem to be the ones turning on Obama now.

I think it will be the right punishing congress in 2010 but it will be the liberals that will punish them in 2012 because of the losses in 2010. I think they will see it as a wasted opportunity and will meet resistance trying to push the democrats even further left.

I can see it getting so bad that some would split off to form a new more liberal party.

Less than half of all democrats are liberal. In fact, 23% (according to today's gallup poll) of democrats consider themselves to be conservative. Not only are liberals in the minority in the country, they are even a minority of democrats now.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Aaron_in_TX

During times such as these, anything is possible. The average American voter does not care for either party all that much. Many wouldn't give you a dime for any of them, regardless of party. I go back to the Perot example. You get a middle of the road type who is liberal/ambivalent on social issues and strict talking on issues such as the deficit, debt and government spending and this person has money, a clean background, is a straight talker and not crazy, that person would be at 35% in a presidential preference poll as an independent in a heartbeat. We are all a bunch of partisan hacks that make comments on this site. We are the extreme minority of the voters in this country. Many people (even a good many that vote) are disgusted by both parties, politicians and their spinning in general and would go wild over the right person advocating a third way. I admit that that movement would eventually fade and be absored by one or both of the two main parties, but it sure as hell would be fun to watch while it lasted.

I remind everyone:

In a June 4-8, 1992 Presidential preference poll coducted by Gallup:
Perot: 39%
Bush: 31%
Clinton: 25%

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/11/us/the-1992-campaign-on-the-trail-poll-gives-perot-a-clear-lead.html

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"You get a middle of the road type who is liberal/ambivalent on social issues and strict talking on issues such as the deficit, debt and government spending and this person has money, a clean background, is a straight talker and not crazy, that person would be at 35% in a presidential preference poll as an independent in a heartbeat."

What you're describing is kind of a perfect person. He/she doesn't exist. I don't know of anyone who could fit that template. Colin Powell? David Petreus? We once though Rudy Giuliani might be that person, and he failed miserably.

I agree that what's missing in the U.S. is a socially moderate, fiscally conservative party - essentially European conservatism ie: Sarkozy, Cameron, Merkel. Unfortunately that wing is split pretty evenly between republicans and democrats and I don't see a way to unite them.

____________________

Beowulf687:

There is no way Obama has 18% approval among Republicans. Thats way to high. Probably more like 7 or 8 percent.

____________________

JMSTiger:

@ Aaron_in_TX

We had that person in April, May and early June of 1992 in Ross Perot (before he started acting strangely and the media tore him down) and you see above what the polls were showing. Perot either didn't give opinions on most social issues or he was slightly left of center. On the fiscal side, he was a hardcore deficit hawk. He was big on patriotic themes. Before he self-destructed, both political parties were in panic mode. Bill Clinton was being ignored. Bush didn't know what to do. And even after the goofiness, Perot still ended up getting 19% of the popular vote, including 20% or higher in 28 states.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"We had that person in April, May and early June of 1992 in Ross Perot (before he started acting strangely and the media tore him down)"

Perot was kind of bizarre. Said he'd run the government like a company. That's not plausible. Of course he wouldn't have been able to do much vs. congress anyway. The polls you mention were probably influenced by the novelty associated with his campaign and people's natural desire to think the grass is greener elsewhere. Plus I don't think a lot of people expected Clinton to win early on. Several more prominent democrats unwisely passed on the 1992 election. I doubt Perot would have won even if he hadn't self-destructed. 3rd parties always underwhelm. Even getting a few more points of the popular vote would not have netted him many electoral votes. He might have won a few small western states and maybe Maine. Clinton would still have won the election.

That's the problem - the electoral college is the biggest barrier to a 3rd party.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR